Posted on 06/13/2024 8:46:46 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Nearly twenty years ago, long before she was in office, a current Democratic U.S. senator wanted to buy a vacation home. She used an online mortgage broker based in North Carolina. On her loan application, she listed her own estimate of what her primary residence was worth. She got the loan and ultimately paid it back early.
Fast forward to today. Would it be wrong for the Department of Justice to start examining that loan application with an eye toward civil action against her? What about the North Carolina attorney general? Does the answer change if the attorney general ran on a campaign hinting that she was going “to go get” the now-senator?
To be clear, the person described above, to my knowledge, does not exist. But let’s say she did. Would any investigation by the next Trump administration, or by an assertive state attorney general, constitute “revenge?” Or would it simply be applying the exact same standard to Democrats that they have applied to Donald Trump?
The hypothetical described above is substantively almost identical to the civil action against Trump in New York that resulted in a judgement against him of nearly half a billion dollars.
The left has been falling all over itself at the prospect of what a second Trump administration might look like. They claim that Trump will be seeking dictatorial powers: “You know, like Julius Caesar.” They wring their hands and claim that his attempts at civil service reform would constitute an illegitimate power grab.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
It would be very disappointing to Just. Be. Nice.
We can be nice AND utilize lawfare to seek justice. Constitutionally and nicely.
Democrats are on a continuous revenge kick.
Nothing but going after people for past grievances.
Let’s win first!
Way too much common sense in that piece for hate filled liberals to understand. Remember, they’ve already deemed Trump to be the embodiment of everything Hitler.
Turnabout is fair play.
Wrong question. What is wrong with applying equal justice to all?
The use of criminal prosecution against political enemies results in pure “might-makes-right” vengeance and destroys ALL notions of fairness and justice. This is where you get “Leave none of your enemies alive.”
Vengeance brings an endless river of blood.
“Getting even” is impossible. It is the path to ruin of psychopaths. It is completely destructive of any system of laws and justice.
I agree 100% with the article, but I’m a little surprised it came from Mick Mulvaney. I thought he left the Trump administration on less that amicable terms.
Oh well, maybe he needs a job.
Get it out of your head, that you can be nice to that bunch of haters.
God said “Vengeance is Mine”. I guess He thinks we don’t handle it well.
I do think we can try to work it out with Christians.. If they behave like they are.. But the others.. They don’t want to get along.. You being nice just eggs them on.
I want justice, not revenge. God still take care of the revenge. But if there’s been crime then we need to deal the consequences.
Beautifully vicious.
Romans 12 - Read it. It’s hard for me too. And, the Chinese have a great proverb about that: “He he would seek revenge must dig two graves.”
“If your brother sins against you, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him”. Luke 17:3.
Democrats will never repent of all their evil scheming to throw their political rivals in jail. So do the same to them.
Retribution. By the truckload
It is impractical.
The bar associations are leftist.
Big city juries are leftist.
To be clear, the person described above, to my knowledge, does not exist. But let’s say she did.
Let's say she does.
Maybe Letitia James should look into the "loan" that former New York Senator Hillary Clinton got from Terry McAuliffe to buy their home in Chappaqua, NY.
Who knows what we might find?
From The Washington Post (September 4, 1999): Clinton's Home Loan Deal Raises Questions
Excerpt:
"Financial favor?" "Better rate" than others could get? "Interest only" payments?
When former White House chief of staff Erskine B. Bowles at the last minute balked at guaranteeing a $1.35 million mortgage for the Clintons' new house in Chappaqua, N.Y., McAuliffe rode to the president's rescue.
In a move that enables the Clintons to buy the house – and Hillary Rodham Clinton to have a base for her New York Senate run – the 42-year-old real estate developer and dealmaker pledged to put up $1.35 million in cash to secure a mortgage for the Clintons. Otherwise, swamped by more than $5 million in legal debts, the Clintons might have had difficulty obtaining the loan for the five-bedroom, century-old house.
Ethics law experts said yesterday that there is no legal difficulty with the Clintons' accepting McAuliffe's help, but some questioned the propriety of the president's accepting such a benefit from a private citizen.
"It's just plain wrong. It's dangerous. It's inappropriate," said Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21. "This is a financial favor worth over a million dollars to the president."
McAuliffe is not actually giving any money to the Clintons. Rather, he will deposit $1.35 million in cash – the full amount of their mortgage – with Bankers Trust; the only risk to McAuliffe's money is in the unlikely event that the Clintons default.
The Clintons will put up $350,000 and pay an adjustable-rate mortgage set at one point over the London Interbank Offered Rate, a bank lending rate that is now 5.52 percent. The loan is "interest-only," meaning the Clintons pay only interest on the loan but do not reduce the principal during the five-year term.
Some mortgage bankers said McAuliffe's intervention either allowed the Clintons to obtain what might appear to be an otherwise risky loan or to secure a lower interest rate because the mortgage is fully backed by collateral. "They would definitely be in a better position to get a better rate with that deal," said Crestar Mortgage Corp. senior vice president Patrick Casey, incoming president of the Mortgage Bankers Association of Metropolitan Washington...
Neither Bankers Trust nor the White House would provide details yesterday about what interest McAuliffe would earn. Financial experts said that it was likely to be well below what he could reap in the stock market or from his investments, but that there would be little inconvenience for McAuliffe if he keeps a significant amount of his wealth in cash.
The Clintons only put up $350,000 in cash and then paid only the interest on the 5-year loan at 5.52% when the average rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage was 8.06% at the end of 1999. And then they get to walk away with a house worth upwards of $1.35 million?
Does this sound familiar to anyone?
-PJ
I am amazed by real estate pricing.
After the past four years, I don’t care.
Kill or be killed. Same as it ever was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.